Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?

[Peter_Plato]

If you say so.

You can safely ignore PA, he only exists as a fictitious character or “idea” in the mind of Hee_Zen. That is, if Hee_Zen, himself doesn’t exist merely as a fictitious character in the mind of some other fictitious character in the mind of some other fictitious character, ad infinitum.

 

[ynotzap]

I have been in “realityland”, where the fictitious characters only exist as ideas, but not in reality. Nothing else needs to be said.

This equates to : there is no conceptual reality, because ideas are not real, you have contradicted yourself and “Snow White etc” does not even exist as a fictitious story or movie.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This equates to : there is no conceptual reality, because ideas are not real, you have contradicted yourself and “Snow White etc” does not even exist as a fictitious story or movie.

You just don’t get it. Ideas and concepts are abstractions. Reality is not the same as abstractions. The concepts and ideas MAY reflect reality, or they may not. Some ideas reflect imaginary “beings”, some may even reflect other ideas. Using the “Snow White” example, someone’s “imaginary Snow White” might be blond girl, while someone else’s “imaginary Snow White” could be a brunette or redhead. Which one is the “real” Snow White? None, because Snow White is just an imaginary character, who does not exist as a real person.

Do you realize the difference between actual objects and imaginary ones?

 

[Bradski]

The morality of “harvesting the body parts of unborn human beings” ought not be determined subjectively.

Indeed. As an aside, if an act can be decided objectively if it is right or wrong then it doesn’t mean that morality is objective.

Beauty, to be at all assessible, MUST refer to objective referents, otherwise the notion is inarguable and anyone who disputes whether something is genuinely beautiful while simultaneously holding that the notion of beauty is merely subjective is simply being obtuse.

You are probably, again, thinking of the easy examples. A van Gogh or a piece by Bach. And you are putting forward arguments without any thought to where they lead. A corollary to the above statement would be a person who thought something to be ugly, yet accepted the fact that it was beautiful:

‘Look what I just bought. It’s a quite beautiful painting’.
‘But I thought you didn’t like it…’
‘I don’t. I think it’s awful’.

That’s where your argument leads.

Similarly, to argue over whether a painting is beautiful or not, the two sides must presume the idea of beauty is independent of their subjective preferences and that objects that exist independently of each of them do or do not “express” the objectively accessible idea of beauty.

There is a concept called ‘beauty’. That is an objective fact. Two people could get into a discussion about what it actually means. I’d be astonished if they didn’t reach agreement somewhere along the lines of ‘aesthetically pleasing’. Please feel free to redefine it if you please. HOWEVER, there is zero connection with that and the proposal that objects have objective beauty.

“Well, I like it,” then it is duly noted as adding no value to the discussion of the question, since it is amounts to an admission that someone (namely you) is incapable of rising above their own sensory responses.

That’s quite a trite statement. If one were to shrug and mumble ‘I dunno…’ if they were asked why they liked something, then it would indeed add nothing. But I think that any reasonably intelligent person would be able to give a reasonable account of why they personally found something aesthetically pleasing. As opposed to saying: ‘Well, apparently it has been endowed with beauty by God’.

What? Nobody has said that! Well, if beauty isn’t subjective then it must be objective. Isn’t God responsible? That’s the question in the OP.

 

[inocente]

It appears you don’t understand the difference between consequentialism and teleology or ends, or, at least, seek to misrepresent them.

Seems you forgot you were a big fan of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism on that other thread.

So you have arbitrarily reified what you call the “dignity” of the person and use that as the sole premise in your, so called, “objective” argument. Yet, when I attempt – at least in your view – to reify beauty and call that an “objective” argument, you call foul.

CCC 1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God

The CCC contains an entire chapter of 176 paragraphs headed “The Dignity of the Human Person”. Dignity of the person is the major concept in virtue ethics.

Are you really telling me all this is brand new to you? That you think virtue ethics arbitrarily reifies what it calls the “dignity” of the person and uses that as the sole premise in its so called, “objective” arguments?

Really?

Now explain to me why you can proclaim things “categorically” wrong or right by stipulation while I cannot proclaim things “categorically” beautiful or ugly by the same stipulation?

Wasn’t me, it was JPII who proclaimed it categorically wrong:

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.” - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

*You insist I must “prove” the existence of beauty, but you give yourself a pass in terms of having to “prove” the existence of categorically correct morality.

Hmmm. Interesting. Proof by presumption works for you but not for anyone else with whom you happen to disagree. Why would THAT be?

As an aside, you haven’t understood my argument for beauty because I haven’t made it. I am merely, at this point, arguing that the “beauty must be subjective” is bogus.

As bogus as claiming that because people like Nucatola – who don’t agree with your view - exist, morality must, then, be subjective and merely a matter of taste. Which happens to be the sole argument presented by PA, Bradski and yourself for why beauty is subjective.

Think about it.*

I think you got yourself very confused there. I never said anything about proving the existence of beauty, I never said morality is a matter of taste, I gave examples of objective moral arguments, said they are objective arguments, and you even quoted me saying, twice, that they are objective arguments.

So now I’ve quoted JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective morality, how about you quote JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective beauty? Please show me all the support you have from the Church, philosophers and well, wherever you like.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Seems you forgot you were a big fan of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism on that other thread.

Seems you can’t stop yourself from reading into the arguments of others what you want to be there.

Again, you need to see the difference between teleology and utility. The end good need not be pleasure, nor any particular satisfaction of the agent, even though these are not necessarily excluded by it.

Now, of course, your either/or, binary thought processes have a difficult time with such a possibility.

 

[inocente]

Would a good example of reification be: when a forum poster treats the abstract belief or hypothetical construct they call “human dignity” as if it were real in order to construct an argument for things being categorically wrong?

Hmmm. Yes, I see now. Thanks for pointing this out. I don’t know where I would be without you.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART THREE - LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE - MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER ONE - THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Please see also post #125. Not every day a Baptist gets to teach a Catholic what’s in the CCC. This thread is a hoot. Have mercy, I keep having to wipe off my monitor.

Seems you can’t stop yourself from reading into the arguments of others what you want to be there.

Again, you need to see the difference between teleology and utility. The end good need not be pleasure, nor any particular satisfaction of the agent, even though these are not necessarily excluded by it.

Now, of course, your either/or, binary thought processes have a difficult time with such a possibility.

Never said anything about pleasure or satisfaction, might be an idea if your read what is written. As I quoted JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective morality, I eagerly await you quoting JPII and the CCC on objective beauty. It will be really great when you finally get round to posting all the support you have from the Church, philosophers and well, wherever you like .

 

[Peter_Plato]

CCC 1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God

The CCC contains an entire chapter of 176 paragraphs headed “The Dignity of the Human Person”. Dignity of the person is the major concept in virtue ethics.

Are you really telling me all this is brand new to you? That you think virtue ethics arbitrarily reifies what it calls the “dignity” of the person and uses that as the sole premise in its so called, “objective” arguments?

Really?

Wasn’t me, it was JPII who proclaimed it categorically wrong:

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.” - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

I think you got yourself very confused there. I never said anything about proving the existence of beauty, I never said morality is a matter of taste, I gave examples of objective moral arguments, said they are objective arguments, and you even quoted me saying, twice, that they are objective arguments.

So now I’ve quoted JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective morality, how about you quote JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective beauty? Please show me all the support you have from the Church, philosophers and well, wherever you like.

This is all very interesting.

I didn’t realize that something being Catholic doctrine was sufficient to convince you that the argument is “objectively true.”

I must find in the CCC where beauty is proclaimed to be an objective quality and that will be sufficient to make the argument as far as you are concerned. I am certain, however, that it won’t be enough for Bradski.

Please note that what you have done is deflect the discussion away from you not having an actual (non-religious) reason why beauty should be treated differently from ethics by citing the Catholic view of ethics. Yes, I realize the Catholic Church views ethics as objectively grounded, but you haven’t explained why YOU do or why YOU think ethics are but beauty isn’t.

By the way, the Church tacitly endorses the view that truth, beauty and goodness are the sublime transcendentals which give us glimpses into God. So, apparently if the Church’s position on ethics is sufficient to convince you of the objective (and not merely subjective) nature of ethics, you would, by the very same token have to accept that beauty is also objective.

Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Never said anything about pleasure or satisfaction, might be an idea if your read what is written.

“…your [sic] read what is written…”?

It might be a good idea if you think about what you write BEFORE writing it (and check it after.)

You accused me of “being a big fan of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism;” what do you suppose THAT means vis a vis pleasure or satisfaction? What it CAN’T mean is that you “Never said anything about pleasure or satisfaction.”

I would now suppose it means you don’t know much about Bentham’s utilitarianism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I quoted JPII and an entire chapter of the CCC on objective morality, I eagerly await you quoting JPII and the CCC on objective beauty. It will be really great when you finally get round to posting all the support you have from the Church, philosophers and well, wherever you like .

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

319 God created the world to show forth and communicate his glory. That his creatures should share in his truth, goodness and beauty - this is the glory for which God created them.

2519 The “pure in heart” are promised that they will see God face to face and be like him. Purity of heart is the precondition of the vision of God. Even now it enables us to see according to God, to accept others as “neighbors”; it lets us perceive the human body - ours and our neighbor’s - as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty.

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . " It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time “he is greater than all his works.” He is "the author of beauty."

1697 Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the “newness of life” in him should be:

• a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;

• a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

• a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;

• a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;

• a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;

• a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;

• a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;

• an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of “spiritual goods” in the “communion of saints” that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.

Note that there is beauty to be found in the “right dispositions towards goodness,” which means that beauty is to be found in goodness.

The transcendentals are ontologically one and thus they are convertible: e.g., where there is truth, there is beauty and goodness, also.

In Christian theology the transcendentals are treated in relation to Theology Proper, the doctrine of God. The transcendentals, according to Christian doctrine, can be described as the ultimate desires of man. Man ultimately strives for perfection, which takes form through the desire for perfect attainment of the transcendentals. The Catholic Church teaches that God is Himself Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.[4]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals

 

[inocente]

This is all very interesting.

I didn’t realize that something being Catholic doctrine was sufficient to convince you that the argument is “objectively true.”

I must find in the CCC where beauty is proclaimed to be an objective quality and that will be sufficient to make the argument as far as you are concerned. I am certain, however, that it won’t be enough for Bradski.

Please note that what you have done is deflect the discussion away from you not having an actual (non-religious) reason why beauty should be treated differently from ethics by citing the Catholic view of ethics. Yes, I realize the Catholic Church views ethics as objectively grounded, but you haven’t explained why YOU do or why YOU think ethics are but beauty isn’t.

By the way, the Church tacitly endorses the view that truth, beauty and goodness are the sublime transcendentals which give us glimpses into God. So, apparently if the Church’s position on ethics is sufficient to convince you of the objective (and not merely subjective) nature of ethics, you would, by the very same token have to accept that beauty is also objective.

Are you sure you want to go there?

If you go back to what you wrote, it came over as if you thought I’d just invented the entire notion of dignity of the human person. I could have used Kant or Aristotle as examples from virtue ethics, there was just more comedic value in quoting the CCC and JPII to a Catholic.

Ethics is basic to living in a society. Without society every man is only concerned for himself, at whatever cost to others, and there is no need for standards of conduct. But when people join into a society, into a commonwealth, they give up certain freedoms for the common good, and having some objective basis for determining right and wrong conduct provides an anchor, avoids a return to the anarchy of every man for himself. And before you accuse me of inventing that argument on the fly, it’s courtesy of Thomas Hobbs, 1651, Leviathan.

There is none on that importance or relevance when it comes to beauty, nor any basis for a standard. Sure, we’re all human and maybe all human beings find the golden section beautiful. But quite often painters and photographers put the subject dead center or somewhere else rather than at the golden section, because humans also like a mix of novelty with certainty. I think you might as well argue that there is an objective way to discern art from not-art. There isn’t.


“Fountain”, Marcel Duchamp, 1917.

In December 2004, Duchamp’s Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals. …] Jerry Saltz wrote in The Village Voice in 2006: "Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to “de-deify” the artist. The readymades provide a way around inflexible either-or aesthetic propositions. …] It is a manifestation of the Kantian sublime: A work of art that transcends a form but that is also intelligible, an object that strikes down an idea while allowing it to spring up stronger. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

That’s the problem with asking what is beauty, what is art, it isn’t static, old ideas keep reemerging in new forms. Are you sure you want to go there?

“…your [sic] read what is written…”?

It might be a good idea if you think about what you write BEFORE writing it (and check it after.)

You accused me of “being a big fan of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism;” what do you suppose THAT means vis a vis pleasure or satisfaction? What it CAN’T mean is that you “Never said anything about pleasure or satisfaction.”

I would now suppose it means you don’t know much about Bentham’s utilitarianism.

Yes, my eyes are not what they were, thanks for reminding me, O Pedantic One.

If you remember, the other thread was about an airliner being used as a missile by terrorists, and your utilitarian position was that by shooting down the aircraft, thereby killing those on board, more lives on the ground would be saved. That’s standard utilitarian ethics, determining action by measuring perceived good and bad consequences. It’s nothing to do with pleasure or satisfaction. Basically it says the ends justify the means, while in the earlier quote JPII says some ends are never justified.

Two excellent intro’s to ethics:

Online course: justiceharvard.org/
Book (bit old now): amazon.com/A-Companion-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0631187855

PS: I see you posted one of your red ink missives, but I have to go for today.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you might as well argue that there is an objective way to discern art from not-art. There isn’t.

There is no a fortiori explanation for so called “art” galleries, then?

Stuff just gets put into them for no apparent rhyme nor reason.

I see.

If you go back over what you wrote, it came over as if you thought I had invented the entire notion of beauty or art.

Beauty, apparently, is not basic to living in human society.

I’ll have to remind the city beautification committee about that, next time they complain about the trashy appliances and hulks of old automobiles on my front lawn. I’ll refer them to you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, my eyes are not what they were, thanks for reminding me, O Pedantic One.

If you remember, the other thread was about an airliner being used as a missile by terrorists, and your utilitarian position was that by shooting down the aircraft, thereby killing those on board, more lives on the ground would be saved. That’s standard utilitarian ethics, determining action by measuring perceived good and bad consequences. **It’s nothing to do with pleasure or satisfaction. **Basically it says the ends justify the means, while in the earlier quote JPII says some ends are never justified.

Except, oh, misinformed one, you specifically mentioned Jeremy Bentham’s version of utilitarianism, which has everything to do with pleasure or satisfaction. (Note the red ink (dis)missives not intENDed for you since you will either miss or dismiss them in any case.)

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and political radical. He is primarily known today for his moral philosophy, especially his principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based upon their consequences. The relevant consequences, in particular, are the overall happiness created for everyone affected by the action. Influenced by many enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume, Bentham developed an ethical theory grounded in a largely empiricist account of human nature. He famously held a hedonistic account of both motivation and value according to which what is fundamentally valuable and what ultimately motivates us is pleasure and pain. **Happiness, according to Bentham, is thus a matter of experiencing pleasure and lack of pain. **

iep.utm.edu/bentham/

Again, you miss the fundamental difference between utilitarianism where the ends matter for the moral agents and teleology where the ends matter to God, the ground of morality. If, as you insist, there are no moral ends, for what purpose are moral actions undertaken? None, I suppose. Just 'cuz.

Good actions are not done for any good or any good reason, then?

Speaking of ends, we rehashed JPII’s quote endlessly in that other thread, seemingly for no good end. As I recall, you came out on the short end of your schtick then, as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you remember, the other thread was about an airliner being used as a missile by terrorists, and your utilitarian position was that by shooting down the aircraft, thereby killing those on board, more lives on the ground would be saved. That’s standard utilitarian ethics, determining action by measuring perceived good and bad consequences. It’s nothing to do with pleasure or satisfaction. Basically it says the ends justify the means, while in the earlier quote JPII says some ends are never justified.

Well, I guess I could show how really foolish your position is, by pointing out that the argument could be reframed just as easily using your “human dignity” criterion for solving the airliner dilemma.

In other words, the option of shooting down the airliner could be justified in that it saved more of that “objective” moral quality you call “human dignity” because it spared more humans from suffering the indignity of trauma and loss that would inevitably result from the obliteration of the human lives in the building over and above those on the airliner.

By citing “human dignity” as a good, you have made it an end by which "good and bad consequences are to be judged.

I noticed you have adopted a utilitarian view, inocente; much to the chagrin of your Baptist mother, no doubt.

 

[inocente]

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

I said “I eagerly await you quoting JPII and the CCC on objective beauty”, not I eagerly await you googling “CCC + beauty” and listing the hits.

There is no a fortiori explanation for so called “art” galleries, then?

Stuff just gets put into them for no apparent rhyme nor reason.

I see.

If you go back over what you wrote, it came over as if you thought I had invented the entire notion of beauty or art.

Beauty, apparently, is not basic to living in human society.

I’ll have to remind the city beautification committee about that, next time they complain about the trashy appliances and hulks of old automobiles on my front lawn. I’ll refer them to you.

I’m amazed you’re never gone to an art gallery and asked yourself is it art? Are Duchamp’s found objects art? Carl Andre’s “Bricks”? Tracey Emin’s “Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963–1995”?

That you think beauty is decided by a beautification committee says it all.

Except, oh, misinformed one, you specifically mentioned Jeremy Bentham’s version of utilitarianism, which has everything to do with pleasure or satisfaction. (Note the red ink (dis)missives not intENDed for you since you will either miss or dismiss them in any case.)

I wasn’t the one voting for utilitarianism on that thread.

*Again, you miss the fundamental difference between utilitarianism where the ends matter for the moral agents and teleology where the ends matter to God, the ground of morality. If, as you insist, there are no moral ends, for what purpose are moral actions undertaken? None, I suppose. Just 'cuz.

Good actions are not done for any good or any good reason, then?

Speaking of ends, we rehashed JPII’s quote endlessly in that other thread, seemingly for no good end. As I recall, you came out on the short end of your schtick then, as well.*

You reminded me of your obstinacy in refusing to read what JPII wrote: “The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.” - w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

And still you claimed an unwritten get-out clause, as if the moral law is decided by contract lawyers. Yes, let’s not waste any more time debating word blindness.

Well, I guess I could show how really foolish your position is, by pointing out that the argument could be reframed just as easily using your “human dignity” criterion for solving the airliner dilemma.

In other words, the option of shooting down the airliner could be justified in that it saved more of that “objective” moral quality you call “human dignity” because it spared more humans from suffering the indignity of trauma and loss that would inevitably result from the obliteration of the human lives in the building over and above those on the airliner.

By citing “human dignity” as a good, you have made it an end by which "good and bad consequences are to be judged.

I noticed you have adopted a utilitarian view, inocente; much to the chagrin of your Baptist mother, no doubt.

My mother passed away.

That you keep calling it “my” human dignity criterion even after an entire chapter of the CCC, plus Aristotle, plus Kant is word blindness beyond belief. I could also have included Plato in the list, how come you named yourself after him and don’t know that? I could have included Islam. American constitutional law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first sentence of which is "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, "

There doesn’t seem much point going on, thanks for the conversation, see you around.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m amazed you’re never gone to an art gallery and asked yourself is it art? Are Duchamp’s found objects art? Carl Andre’s “Bricks”? Tracey Emin’s “Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963–1995”?

Of course. And I can ONLY ask myself that BECAUSE I have an understanding that art and beauty are objective and not subjective. If I believed they truly were subjective, the question would never come up.

That is what is puzzling about your position. You claim with one side of your mouth that they can’t be art, while, with the other that art is merely whatever anyone claims it is. For you, and anyone who holds the subjective view, there is no question that they are art. Those works have just as much warrant for being considered art as works by Picasso, Rembrandt, Da Vinci or Michelangelo – that is, no warrant is needed, except that someone, somewhere, “determines” that they are by subjective fiat.

That you think beauty is decided by a beautification committee says it all.

And the fact that you think it isn’t says even more.

Hint: It says that you suppose beauty has objective grounds which cannot be decided by anyone as uninformed as a ‘beautification committee.’ Which means you have ‘standards’ for art which you think beautification committees are unfit to uphold.

If you truly thought determinations of beauty were only “subjective,” the fact that a beautification committee were responsible for upholding the concept wouldn’t be problematic, now would it? There wouldn’t be an objective standard for you to be critical of them about, no?

My mother passed away.

I am truly sorry to hear that.

That you keep calling it “my” human dignity criterion even after an entire chapter of the CCC, plus Aristotle, plus Kant is word blindness beyond belief. I could also have included Plato in the list, how come you named yourself after him and don’t know that? I could have included Islam. American constitutional law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first sentence of which is "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, "

There doesn’t seem much point going on, thanks for the conversation, see you around.

Way to bypass the objection that your view is just as utilitarian as any you accuse me of holding based upon your misconceived view of utilitarian ethics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you go back to what you wrote, it came over as if you thought I’d just invented the entire notion of dignity of the human person. I could have used Kant or Aristotle as examples from virtue ethics, there was just more comedic value in quoting the CCC and JPII to a Catholic.

A few misunderstandings need to be cleared up surrounding the above.

First off, Kant is not a prime example of a philosopher known for espousing “virtue ethics.” His schtick was to be the principal promoter of what is known as deontological ethics - that is norm or “rule based” ethics.

Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist ones, a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate its deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological theories themselves. Consequentialists hold that choices—acts and/or intentions—are to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about. Consequentialists thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically valuable—often called, collectively, “the Good.” They then are in a position to assert that whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that it is morally right to make and to execute. (The Good in that sense is said to be prior to “the Right.”)…

If any philosopher is regarded as central to deontological moral theories, it is surely Immanuel Kant. Indeed, each of the branches of deontological ethics—the agent-centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoTheKan

Aristotle, and the Thomists generally can be classed as “consequentialist” in the most broad understanding of that term. Ends matter for Aristotle. He famously noted that the end for which all men act is happiness, (eudaemonia) although, he also observed, there isn’t agreement on what comprises happiness.

For Aquinas, the good – or, more properly, the Good – for human beings is the beatific vision. In the broad sense, Aquinas and Aristotle are concerned with ends, which makes them consequentialists, generally speaking.

The difference, I would argue, between utilitarians and teleologists is in the understanding of where the ends are grounded or sourced.

Utilitarians, like Bentham would argue that the ends are determined by the agents themselves. What conduces to the pleasure (Bentham) or happiness (Mill) of the agents as determined by the agents IS what makes things moral or not.

Teleologists would place the ends apart from the agents in something like fulfilling the natural makeup of man (Aristotle) or man’s fullness of being as willed by God (Aquinas and Catholicism.) “The glory of God is man fully alive.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

The difference, I would argue, between utilitarians and teleologists is in the understanding of where the ends are grounded or sourced.

Utilitarians, like Bentham would argue that the ends are determined by the agents themselves. What conduces to the pleasure (Bentham) or happiness (Mill) of the agents as determined by the agents IS what makes things moral or not.

Teleologists would place the ends apart from the agents in something like fulfilling the natural makeup of man (Aristotle) or man’s fullness of being as willed by God (Aquinas and Catholicism.) “The glory of God is man fully alive.”

For a better view of this difference in the two views, the following post is worth a quick look:

the-american-catholic.com/2015/07/20/men-as-meat/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When it came to morality, Bertrand Russell was a well known subjective emotivist.

But in rather a weak moment he said:

"I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it”.

This is a concession to objective morality.

The same could be said for the objectivist philosophy of beauty.

We hear people chant the subjectivist mantra, “De gustibus non est disputandem.”

But I find myself incapable of believing that the Grand Canyon’s staggering beauty only exists because I like it.

 

[ynotzap]

What is objectively conducive to the well-being of society, is good and right, and what is not objectively conducive to the well-being of society,is bad and wrong. A moral principle, the understanding of the this principle is so much needed in society today. Society’s existence depends on it.